FLM 

2015 

013711 















O > o 

% *••■•* *° 

a 0 % ^ V ' * r * o 

* ^ £ •VSfef. ^ a 

* '5 '•'?, 


a>"V ;m»« : 

<*» 'o , » * <Cr ^b 

-'■'•* ^ . <v .o«». A- 



<it’ O 4 . 0 

e «° <** °^ *•'’* a 0 

V »’••.. cv jy 

y- sy * $sy&R /hy cj^ * 

'rsMm&i ’-'bv 

'IBr • *>■% ° 

° - 7 ** 5 y *A '■ 


% X G 0 ’ A 

;- X o^ f< 

y °^ *° *4 

> o +*4Mr&f 0 

% V °* *"’* A 0 

V * Y * CV <0 ,*V* 


s 4 A <*'”•'•* ,< 

JL^ • 1 ' ' » ^ 0^ 

,<T ♦Wfe,* ^ c° 

& ** jk\\ //y?b> ■* Ga a 


o . >. * <0 v* 

.,• o o 0 A. b 

-jP ^ V % »;*°- **c\ ,<G .»** 

' **. ** *^VV" * - tJ ^ 

: ' V-v * $MV/y>h 


4 A <X *0 * A * 

-A • 1 ' * * ^ 

<<T ^ 

*b v 4 :£mjo£- +* o 4 

* 4 


4 o 

* tv 

^ - -Njvo * <jT 

^ ' * » O * A* 

N> V % * * * °- 

* *$» ^ ♦rCOOSg/ 

* $M¥A 


* av ^ «p" 

A O '«•** ,C^ \d *v7v;« 

& t -M!- ^ c 0 ^ ^yy- "\j 

y. ^ “ 

i* OP- r ^ - 

§? * x 0 v- 

rv *■ 


A Cr 

' !Sv V * r s s / 1 u v 

* o ^yyjy^y o 

^ **<’• 

v r - C> .0 V *»'•', 

. ^ \G .'iiV/uV ^ A> . ‘ Jt52s* 


■> 


,v 




° ^5 - 

' x > * 
♦ y-l r (pv 


cv «■ 

: v » < 


> n t * 

^ °^> ° %Sliw# * ^ "^a °o w j}&\y ■*> v 

,G o 'c!* 4 y\ <v ^o.»* .0^ 

f 0^ *®v- ^O ^ 0^ o 

G * O ^ -r ^ G 

_s^ \ \ \ n<a, ^ &?rl[//?y ' r y ^ 

o V 


’W 


' v r\ -^* - w\\\vr 

A 0 ■ <s> * » « o ,-?> 

•4? ^ v 


G ^ G 

V< v • A 


* 


o 



r '-?■ c 

o 0 % «> o ^W^ % * -i “A o V 

, r V <s _^\\V<c-W/XA ° ^ r. <=> " o 

° v//M\\\r * .c^ <?, 

o 


o 


■* 


u / 


K> <o y 

<U* ^ 

•o’- V ; — f 

.p / \ 4 *\ 

■ --m —» - "°v’ : M^' ^ :' A 

°-o ^ 'xilsSV ^ °^ 5v 0 ^ «% 

°* **■’* f° < V'»V°’ / %*%?.•' A°° V ' 

% \ <& /Jifer* ^ ^ *- ^ 

^ S 1 V*v * 


,0 


u v\ 


. % 

-r \ vj ♦ 

+* o 5 

> - » ** °^ 

X- *%Law> * _ * c 

%. '.r^o* °- 



fl. A u * = "°° ,V 

v - o. , 0 ' ,VV% V V % ••- - 

: W .*jS« 

sy** °o 

* * <0 



v ^ T * °^ 

(~> ^aiiyillllffc^ A V ’rCUSfiA 

_ ^ ^ oVjfy* J? 'V 

5 A <\ 'o.»* .0^ ^5 

A <4> . t > . . <S>. ^ 

/T ♦* 


4 




-o C° ° 

\0 *7*“ * * -4 O v 

O *^ ! *’,* n 0 ^ ^ O 

^ * < 1 * a 0 A> * » » o 5 ,<y o 

,<y r A <V 

K tj 

rV «• T 
o r^> „ ^ 































































SLAVERY AND 
THE RACE PROBLEM 
IN THE SOUTH 


WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO 
THE STATE OF GEORGIA. . . 


Address of Hon. Wm. H. Fleming Before the 
Alumni Society of the State University, 
Athens, June 19, 1906. 



PRE SS OF 

The Augusta Chronicle Job Office 

AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 


\ 



£ 

( io I 

• FM , 

1 1 o iff & 


SLAVERY AND THE RACE 
PROBLEM IN THE SOUTH 


WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE STATE OF 

GEORGIA. 


Address of Hon. Wm. H. Fleming Before the Alumni Society 
of the State University, Athens, June 19, 1906. 


Brothers of the Alumni Society, Ladies 
and Gentlemen: 

It is my purpose to discuss slavery 
and the race problem in the South, with 
special reference to our own State of 
Georgia. 

No public issue is more deserving of 
thoughtful consideration by our people, 
and no occasion could be more fit for 
its discussion. This audience is quali- 
fied in head and heart to appreciate at 
its true value every argument that may 
be advanced, and this platform at our 
chief seat of learning is so lifted up, 
that words spoken here may be heard 
in all parts of the State, echoing among 
the “Hills of Habersham” and over the 
“Sea Marshes of Glynn.” 

If there be any one present perturbed 
by a secret doubt ns to the propriety 
of my bringing this subject and this 
occasion together in the midst of the 
pending political campaign in Georgia, 
let me hasten to allay his fears with 
the assurance that I shall carefully re- 
frain from all offensive personal allu- 
sions. Speaking to this very point 
some weeks before his fatal illness, 
Chancellor Hill cordially approved of 
my selection of the race problem for 


discussion at this time before the alum- 
ni of the university, and he added with 
characteristic broadmindedness: “I 

wish my platform at Athens to be a 
place for the freest expression of hon- 
est thought.” 

At the outset, we should realize that 
if we are to make any genuine prog- 
ress toward a right solution of our 
problem, we must approach it in a 
spirit of the utmost candor, and with 
an eye single to the ascertainment of 
the truth. The pessimist “sailing the 
Vesuvian Bay” listens for the dreaded 
rumblings of the distant mountain — 
blind to the wondrous beauties of earth 
and sky about him. The optimist float- 
ing down the placid upper stream pic- 
tures to himself an endless panorama 
of peaceful landscapes — deaf to the 
thundering cataract of Niagara just 
below him. But better than pessimism 
and better than optimism is that phil- 
osophy which faces facts as they are, 
and courageously interprets their mean- 
ing. 

Slavery and Christianity. 

In the earlier civilizations slavery was 
the rule, not the exception. But with 
the advent of the Christ and His teach- 






ings, a silent, gentle, yet all-compelling 
force began its work on the universal 
heart of humanity. Christianity ad- 
justed itself to existing governmental 
institutions including slavery. But it 
inculcated such lofty doctrines of love 
and duty, and created such vivid con- 
ceptions of a personal God and Father 
of us all, that it was only a question 
of time when Christian peoples could 
not hold in slavery those of their own 
faith and blood. 

In England in 1696 the doctrine had 
obtained wide acceptance that Christian 
baptism of itself worked a legal manu- 
mission of the slave. Argument to 
that effect was urged by able lawyers 
in the court of King’s Bench in the 
suit of Chamberlain v. Herney, but the 
case went off on another ground, and 
that point was not decided. About the 
same time, however, the colonies of 
Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina 
passed laws that Christian baptism 
should not free the negro slave, “any 
opinion or matter to the contrary not- 
withstanding.” Thus we see a recog- 
nition of the necessity at that period 
of our history of controlling by statu- 
tory enactments this expanding senti- 
ment of Christian brotherhood among 
the masses of the people, so as to pre- 
vent it from embracing the alien negro 
race. 

The march of Christian civilization 
had put an end to white slavery, but 
negro slavery still flourished, chiefly be- 
cause the negro was of a different race- 
blood from his masters. Oneness in 
faith and blood had grown to mean 
freedom for the whie man. But one- 
ness in fa-fth, without oneness in blood, 
still meant slavery for the negro. 

Indeed, negro slavery as a historical 
institution in Western civilization oc- 
cupies a unique position of its own. 
It began in the fifteenth century when 
white slavery had practically ceased. 
Most other slaveries were incidental re- 
sults of wars. Negro slavery origi- 
nated in commerce, in trade and barter, 
and so continued until it was sup- 
pressed. 

Justification of Negro Slavery Based on 
Race- 1 nferiority. 

When in later years the institution 
was summoned before the bar of the 

GIFT 

ms. WOODftOW WILSON 
NOV. 23, 1959 


world’s public opinion, its most logical 
and profound defenders admitted the 
wrongfulness of white slavery, but jus- 
tified negro slavery on the' plea of the 
natural inferiority of the negro race. 

Alexander Stephens, then vice-presi- 
dent of the Southern Confederacy, in 
his famous Corner Stone Speech at Sa- 
vannah in March, 1861, said: “Many 

governments have been founded upon 
the principle of subordination and serf- 
dom of certain classes of the same 
race. Such were, and are, in violation 
of the laws of nature. Our system con- 
tains no such violation of nature’s laws. 
With us, all the white race, however, 
high or low, rich or poor, are equal in 
the eye of the law. Not so with the 
negro; subordination is his place.” 
* * * * Referring to the Confederacy, 
he declared: “Its foundations are laid, 

its corner stone rests, upon the great 
truth that the negro is not equal to 
the white man, that slavery — subordi- 
nation to the superior race — is his nat- 
ural and normal condition.” 

The fact of race inequality here 
stated can not well be denied. But 
there is still a fatal flaw in the logic. 
That flaw lies in the assumption that 
a superior race has the right to hold 
an inferior race in slavery. A race can 
not be justly deprived of liberty mere- 
ly because it is relatively inferior to 
another. If so, all other branches of 
the human family could justly be re- 
duced to slavery by the highest, most 
masterful branch — and that mastery 
could only be determined by force of 
arms. The obligation of the superior 
to lead and direct does not carry with 
it the right to enslave. 

Mr. Stephens further declared in his 
speech: ‘It is upon this, as I have 

stated, our social fabric is firmly plant- 
ed, and I can not permit myself to 
doubt the ultimate success of the full 
recognition of this principle through- 
out .the civilized and enlightened 
world.” 

Here we have one of the ablest intel- 
lects of his day not only asserting 
that negro slavery was legally and mor- 
ally right, but predicting that its rec- 
ognition would become universal 
throughout the civilized world — a pre- 
diction made within five years of its 


abolition in the United States, and 
within twenty-seven years of its aboli- 
tion in Brazil, which marked the final 
disappearance of human slavery as a 
legalized institution among civilized 
peoples. 

Let me say in passing, that this Cor- 
ner Stone speech is not to be found 
in the authorized volume containing 
the biography and speeches of Mr. 
Stephens. One can scarcely suppress 
the question: Did the great commoner 
prefer for posterity to judge him by 
other speeches? Certain it is, that the 
views he expressed on negro slavery 
did not spring from hardness of heart, 
or want of sympathy with any suffer- 
ing creature on earth. At his death, 
his negro body servant in tearful ac- 
cents pronounced upon him this noble 
eulogy: “Mars Alec was kinder to dogs 

than most men is to folks.” 

But Mr. Stephens was defending the 
then existing institution of slavery 
handed down to his people by their 
fathers, recognized by historical anal- 
ogies from the Bible, and sanctioned 
by the federal constitution. His mor- 
al nature was uncompromising. There 
was no way to adjust that moral na- 
ture to existing conditions except by 
making the assumption, which he did 
make, of the right of a superior race 
to enslave an inferior race. 

If race environment could so warp 
the judgment of a great intellect like 
that of Alexander Stephens, other men 
may well be cautious lest they miss 
the truth. 

We need not stop to discuss wheth- 
er the north or south was the more 
responsible for negro slavery in Amer- 
ica. It takes two to make a bargain. 
Northern traders sold and southern 
planters bought. If Charleston, South 
Carolina was one of the chief ports 
of destination for slave trading ves- 
sels Salem Massachusetts was one of 
the chief ports from whence those ves- 
sels sailed. 

In the earlier days of the southern 
colonies there were many strong pro- 
tests against negro slavery. But once 
established it continued to grow and 
flourish until we reached those un- 
happy days foreshadowed by Mr. Mad- 
ison, when he said in the constitu- 


tional convention of 1787 that the real 
antagonism would not arise between 
the large states on the one hand and 
the small states on the other as many 
seemed to fear, but that “The insti- 
tution of slavery and its consequences 
formed the line of discrimination.” 

Slavery the irritating Cause of the 

v/ar. 

No historian can ever truthfully as- 
sert that the men who bore the ban- 
ner of the Confederacy in victory and 
in defeat with such matchless courage, 
and heroic sacrifice were moved only 
by the selfish purpose of holding their 
black fellow men in bondage. They 
were inspired by the noblest senti- 
ments of patriotism. So far from be- 
ing traitors to the constitution of their 
fathers, which Mr. Gladstone declared 
w r as the “most wonderful work ever 
struck off at a given time by the brain 
and purpose of man,” they reverenced 
that great instrument next to the Bible. 
So far from trampling it under foot, 
they held it up as their shield. They 
appealed to the north and west to rec- 
ognize the binding obligation of that 
constitution as interpreted by the high- 
est court, only to hear it denounced at 
last as “a covenant with death and 
an agreement with hell.” 

And yet, we must in candor admit 
that the truthful historian will write 
it down that slavery was the parti- 
cular irritating cause that forced on 
the conflict of arms between the sec- 
tions, though deeper causes lay at the 
foundation of our sectional differences 
on centralization and state rights. 

When Robert Toombs made his 
memorable farewell speech in the 
United States senate on January 7, 
1861, he laid down five propositions 
setting forth the contentions of the 
south which, if granted, would have 
averted disunion. Every one of those 
five propositions was a cl£ar cut, logi- 
cal deduction from the original mean- 
ing and intent of the constitution, and 
all five of them centered around the 
institution of slavery. 

Again, when the conflict was over 
and the constitution was amended at 
three separate times. two of these 
amendments, the thirteenth and fif- 


3 


teenth referred exclusively to slavery, 
and the other, the fourteenth, referred 
chiefly to slavery. No other historical 
facts, though there are many, need to 
be cited to prove that slavery was 
the immediate precipitating cause of 
the Civil War. 

The Thirteenth Amendment. 

The thirteenth amendment, ratified 
in 1865, abolishing slavery was a legi- 
timate and necessary result of the ar- 
bitrament of the sword. Mr. Lincoln 
at first declared that the purpose of 
the war on the part of the government 
was to preserve the union and not to 
free the slaves. But the progress of 
events had rendered him powerless to 
confine the struggling forces of social 
upheaval within that limitation — even 
if his personal views had undergone no 
change. 

Great was the relief to many 
thoughtful minds in the south when 
this fruitful cause of sectional con- 
tention had been removed. In an ad- 
dress delivered from this platform in 
1871, Benjamin H. Hill gave thanks 
in fervid metaphor that the “dusky 
Reien” had left the crumbling walls 
of Troy, and that southern genius, 
once “bound like Prometheus” to the 
rock of slavery, had been loosed from 
its bonds. 

The Fourteenth Amendment. 

The fourteenth amendment ratified 
in 1868, was a combination of judicial 
wisdom in the first section, of fruit- 
less compromise jn the second section, 
and of political proscription in the 
third section. 

The first section of this amendment 
must now be icgavdod as one of the 
very best parts of the entire instru- 
ment. It gave for the first time an au- 
thorative definition of United States 
citizenship, and forbade any state to 
abridge the privileges of such citizens 
or to deprive any person of life, liberty 
or property without due process of 
law, or to deny to any person within 
its jurisdiction the equal protection of 
the laws. We had lived nearly three- 
quarters of a century under a gov- 
ernment that had no constitutional or 
statutory definition of its own citizen- 
ship, and with no sufficient jurisdiction 


in its courts to give adequate protec- 
tion to the equal rights now attach- 
ing to that citizenship. 

What constituted one a citizen of 
the United States had long been a sub- 
ject of discussion in the public journals 
in the executive departments and in 
the courts. The supreme court in the 
Dred Scott case in 1857, decided that 
a person of African descent, whether 
slave or free, was not, and could not 
be a citizen of a state or of the United 
States. That decision was of course 
superceded by the fourteenth amend- 
ment. 

This first section was profound in 
its wisdom and far reaching in its ef- 
fect upon the rights of life, liberty and 
property, not only of blacks but of 
whites. That eminent southern jurist, 
the Hon. Hannis Taylor, referring 
specially to this section, has well 
said: “From a purely scientific 

point of view the constitution of the 
United States never reached its logical 
completion until after the adoption of 
the fourteenth amendment.” 

The omission from the original con- 
stitution of a definition of United 
States citizenship and of a distinct pro- 
vision against state encroachment on 
equal rights attaching thereto, carried 
with it a deep significance. 

Few facts in our history point more 
unerringly to the conclusion that in the 
minds of the framers of that instru- 
ment, the paramount allegiance of the 
citizen was to his state, and not to the 
United States. It was this sense of 
duty which properly constrained Lee 
and other lovers of the Union to sur- 
render their high commissions in the 
Federal army and cast their fortunes 
with their own seceding states. Hap- 
pily the future holds for us no possi- 
bility of the recurrence of that divided 
allegience. 

Historically under the constitution 
the South was right both as to slavery 
and secession, but the simple truth is 
that public opinion on those two sub- 
jects had outgrown the constitution. 

No man contributed more to the de- 
velopment of public opinion against dis- 
union than did Mr. Webster. When he 


4 


made his great speech in 1830 in re- 
ply to Mr. Hayne, closing with that 
matchless tribute to the Union flag: 
“The broad ensign of the republic, now 
known and honored throughout the 
world, still full high advanced” — he 
created and vitalized and electrified 
u ‘Union sentiment throughout the length 
and breadth of the land. That speech 

I vS * 

more than the word or deed of any 
other one man prepared the way for 
the coming of Lincoln, and made pos- 
sible the vast armies of Grant. After 
all, should not Webster be given first 
place in the Hall of Fame dedicated to 
Saviors of the Union? 

The Fifteenth Amendment. 

The 15th amendment, ratified in 1872, 
prohibited the United States or any 
state, in prescribing suffrage qualifi- 
cations, from discriminating against 
citizens of the United States on account 
of race, color or previous condition of 
servitude. It did not confer the ballot 
upon any one — it only prohibited dis- 
crimination on account of a specified 
difference. The right to vote is not a 
privilege or attribute of national cit- 
izenship under either the 14th or 15th 
amendment; but the right to be exempt 
from discrimination in voting on ac- 
count of race is an attribute of nation- 
al citizenship under the 15th amend- 
ment. 

This amendment was at the time of 
its adoption a doubtful and dangerous 
experiment — but once made, it is be- 
yond recall. 

It embodied a distinct addition to the 
principle set out in the second section 
of the 14th amendment, which latter 
impliedly permitted a state to deny the 
ballot to the negro if it were willing 
to suffer the penalty of a proportionate 
reduction of representation in the low- 
er house of congress. 

So far as the negro is concerned, the 
second section of the fourteenth 
amendment was a political com- 
promise against him, while the fif- 
teenth amendment was a complete dec- 
laration of his equal suffrage rights. 

A resolution for a fourteenth amend- 
ment in almost the identical words fin- 
ally used in this second section in 1868, 


had been up for discussion in the sen- 
ate as early as 1866- Charles Sumner 
then denounced it as “a compromise of 
human rights, the most immoral, in- 
decent and utterly shameful of any in 
our history.” 

Mr. Blaine in his book “Twenty Years 
in Congress” took the position that the 
enactment of the fifteenth amendment 
operated as a practical repeal of the 
second section of the fourteenth 
amendment. He says: “Before 

the adoption of the fifteenth amend- 
ment, if a state should exclude the ne- 
gro from suffrage the next step would 
be for congress to exclude the negro* 
from the basis of apportionment. After 
the adoption of the fifteenth amend- 
ment, if a state should exclude the ne- 
gro from suffrage, the next step would 
be for the supreme court to declare the 
act was unconstitutional and therefore 
null and void.” 

Some latter-day statesmen, who have 
introduced bills in congress to reduce 
southern representation, do not seem to 
agree with Mr. Blaine. 

Verily, if the party of Sumner should 
ever abandon the vindication of the fif- 
teenth amendment by substituting for 
it the compromise of the fourteenth 
amendment, the shade of that 
eminent statesman would surely be 
moved to indignation and contempt — if 
it still concerns itself with mundane 
political affairs. Such a substitute- 
compromise now could, bring no good 
to either whites or blacks of the south. 
It would work evil and evil only. 

Some Reasons for Adopting the Fif- 
teenth Amendment. 

The fifteenth amendment was natur- 
ally received with much bitterness by 
the white people of the south, because 
many of them interpreted it to mean 
that our political enemies of the north 
who held control of the government in- 
tended thereby to doom the south to 
perpetual negro domination. 

No doubt many of such advocates 
were moved by prejudice and hate, 
but we of the south, in this day, must 

not blind ourselves to the fact that this 

0' ■ r ' 

amendment was advocated by some 

. » > ■ t ' - * * 

men then in public life who were not 


5 


controlled by such base motives, but 
were patriotically striving to settle a 
great fundamental question of gov- 
ernment on an enduring basis. 

Let us not forget that when congress 
passed the joint resolution submitting 
the fifteenth amendment, to the states 
for adoption, the negroes had already 
been made citizens of the United 
States by the fourteenth amendment, 
and it was impossible to conjoin that 
status of citizenship with a total ex- 
clusion of the negro race from the 
ballot without undermining some of 
the foundation principles of our repre- 
sentative republic. 

Bear in mind also that at the time 
when congress acted on that resolu- 
tion in 1869, the negro had already ex- 
ercised the right of suffrage under the 
reconstruction acts of congress begin- 
ning in 1867. It was not under the 
fifteenth amendment but under the 
prior reconstruction acts, that the ne- 
groes cast their first ballots. 

So that the issue then was, not 
whether to give the negroes something 
they had never possessed, but whether 
to deny them in the future a privilege 
they had already actually enjoyed. 

The southern states were expecting 
soon to be restored to political auton- 
omy. What stand would the white 
people of those states take as to the 
rights of their former slaves? To what 
extremes of . pillage and slaughter 
might not the millions of negroes go 
under fear of partial or total re-en- 
slavement? These and other questions 
were hard to answer. To whatever 
point of the political horizon the 
thoughtful patriot turned his gaze, the 
clouds were dark and portentous. A 
crisis was at hand. It had to be met. 

Giving the the ballot to five million 
of newly freed slaves of an inferior or 
or backward race, ignorant, unaccus- 
tomed to do or think for themselves, 
could not have been the deliberate act 
of wise statesmanship, but only the 
choice of what seemed to be the les- 
ser of two evils. In truth, the whole 
plan seems to have been an effort not 
only to obliterate at once, as with a 
stroke of the pen, all distinctions im- 


posed by law but to ignore all distinc- 
tions imposed by nature. 

Many thoughtful men at the north 
are now of the opinion that it would 
have been far better had the military 
control in the south been continued 
and the ballot withheld for a time at 
least, from the freed men and finally 
bestowed upon them by degrees. But 
that is a dead issue now. 

As a practical measure of proce- 
dure, the fifteenth amendment was 
in many respects harsh and cruel 
toward the white people of the south, 
but theoretically it was necessary to 
round out the constitution of a rep- 
resentative republic based on that 
equality of citizenship before the law 
which had already been foreshadowed 
by the thirteenth and fourteenth 
amendments. 

We may well thank God that the 
south has recovered from the imme- 
diate shock of these rough post-bellum 
operations in political surgery. In 
comparison to the past — with its civil 
war and its reconstruction — the fu- 
ture can hold no terrors for us. Only 
let us act with wisdom and not lose 
what we have gained through our suf- 
fering. 

Any Future Suffrage Amendment Will 
Increase Power of Congress. 

The fifteenth amendment may, by 
negative acquiescence of the Ameri- 
can people, become for a time a dead 
letter, but that three-fourths of the 
forty-five or more states will ever 
affirmatively repeal it for the pur- 
pose of allowing five or six southern 
states to withhold from our negro 
citizens as a race the right to the bal- 
lot is to my mind an hallucination too 
extreme for serious consideration. 

If these post-bellum amendments of 
the constitution bearing upon slavery 
shall ever be altered by future amend- 
ments, the alteration will be in the di- 
rection of placing under federal con- 
trol the entire subject of suffrage 
qualifications in all national and state 
elections. The unmistakable trend of 
our political and social development 
from the beginning of the government 
has been toward the centre, not away 


6 


from it. The centripetal force has 
been stronger than the centrifugal 
force. Under a law of social gravita- 
tion all the parts have been drawn 
more intimately into one national 
unity. 

To suppose that this national au- 
thority would of its own accora emas- 
culate itself and surrender its own 
present consolidated power back to 
the former diverse elements from 
which it was wrested, would be to 
reverse every record of political his- 
tory, and to ignore every lesson of po- 
litical philosophy. 

Indeed, when the resolution for the 
fifteenth amendment was under dis- 
cussion in the senate in 1869, an 
amendment to that resolution was of- 
fered to confer upon congress the full 
power to prescribe the qualifications 
for voters and officeholders both in 
the states and in the United States. 

It was not adopted then because 
the time was' not ripe. But we may 
accept it to be as certain as any fu- 
ture movement of this kind can be, 
that if the constitution shall be 
amended on the subject of the suf- 
frage that amendment will not re- 
store lost power to the states, but 
will confer more power on the na- 
tional government. The less we agi- 
tate it the better. 

Numerical Relation of Races. 

We have now reached the stage in 
our discussion where we may best 
consider what is to my mind the most 
important factor in our problem, 
namely, the numerical relation of the 
whites and the blacks of the south- 
ern states. Having the advantage in 
land-holdings and all other forms of 
wealth, in intellect, in racial pride and 
strength, our white supremacy can 
never be overthrown except by force 
of numbers. For many years after the 
war we could not rid ourselyes of the 
apprehension that at some day in the 
future we might be borne down by nu- 
merical majorities. These fears were 
not wholly unfounded at that time- 

In slavery under the fostering care, 
as well as the commercial interest of 
the master, the negroes multiplied in 


a greater ratio than the whites. What 
effect would the new social order of 
freedom have on that ratio of in- 
crease? Was the Caucasian race of 
the south face to face with a pitiless 
force that might gradually but inevita- 
bly overwhelm it by sheer weight of 
numbers? If so, would that race yield, 
or would it adopt extreme measures 
for self-preservation? These were 
momentous and perturbing questions. 

The census of 1870 coming first af- 
ter the war could give very little basis 
for deduction of any sort. But when 
the census figures of 1880 were made 
known and were compared with those 
of 1870, that comparison revealed a 
most ominous situation. Three states, 
South Carolina, Mississippi and Louis- 
iana each had at that time an actual 
black majority, and the per cent of 
gain for the negroes in the southern 
group of states as shown by the statis- 
tical experts was far in excess of that 
of the whites, being 34.3 as against 
27.5 per cent from all sources. 

Judge Tourgee’s Prophecies Not Ful- 
filled. 

Judge Albion W. Tourgee in his book 
“An Appeal to Caesar” published in 
1884, declared that in the year 1900 
every state between Maryland and 
Texas would have a black majority. 

Time has exposed the falsity of that 
prediction. Not one of those states be- 
tween Maryland and Texas that had a 
white majority in 1880 had lost it in 
1900. On the contrary, every such state 
increased its white majority, while 
South Carolina, from 1890 to 1900, re- 
duced her negro majority by 2,412, and 
Louisiana in the same period changed 
a negro majority of 798 into a white 
majority of 78.818. 

The white majority in the ten dis- 
tinctively southern states was increas- 
ed by 1,002,662 from 1890 to 1900. In 
the same period our white majority in 
Georgia rose from 119,542 to 146,481. In 
every southern state, except Missis- 
sippi, where peculiar conditions pre- 
vailed, the margin of safety for white 
supremacy, even on the basis of num- 
bers, has increased. 

These predictions of negro majori- 


7 


ties were not confined to writers of 
fiction like Judge Tourgee. Prof. Gil- 
liam, a statistician of high repute, an- 
nounced that among the whites of the 
old slave states the rate of natural in- 
crease from 1870 to 1880 was 20 per 
cent, while that of the blacks in the 
same states was 35 per cent. 

With these figures as a basis he 
reached the conclusion that the 6,- 
000,000 of southern blacks in 1880 would 
increase to 12,000,000 in 1900. But when 
the census takers of 1900 had counted 
every colored man, woman and child 
in the whole United States, the total 
footed up only 8,383,994, which is 3,- 
616,006 less than the professor had pre- 
dicted would be found in the southern 
states alone. 

Judge Tourgee using these percent- 
ages given by Prof. Gilliam, argued 
that all the conditions pointed to a 
greater discrepancy in the future. 

But the census of 1900 shows that 
the rate of increase of the blacks in 
the South Atlantic States where the 
conditions are most favorable, was only 
14.3 per cent, from 1890 to 1900, in- 
stead of 35 per cent, as reported for 
a previous decade, while that of the 
whites stood substantially at its pre- 
vious record of 20 per cent. 

It is now an accepted fact that the 
census of 1870 did not give a complete 
enumeration of the negroes in the 
South, and this deficiency by compari- 
son with the more accurate census of 
1880 necessarily showed a greater pro- 
portionate increase among the negroes 
than among the whites. It was this 
error in figures that lead to all these 
unfounded predictions, which for a time 
hung like a pall over the South. 
Margin of Safety for White Supremacy 

Steadily Increasing. 

But the census figures of 1890 and 
1900 supplied the necessary data for a 
correct comparison. The resulting 
demonstration was that instead of the 
whites of the South being overwhelmed 
with a deluge of negroes, the cer- 
tainty of continued white supremacy 
has steadily increased with every dec- 
ade. 

One cause of this comparative de- 
cline of the negroes in numbers is to 


be found in the fact that they have no 
course of supply from immigration, 
while the whites are receiving constant 
accessions from other States and from 
foreign countries. This influx of whites 
comparatively small at present, will 
undoubtedly continue and become larg- 
er with our growing industrial pros- 
perity, which was never on so firm a 
foundation as now. The completion of 
the Panama canal will accelerate the 
development of our resources and give 
new impetus to white immigration, and 
thus help vastly in the solution of our 
problem. 

A second cause of this comparative 
decline is that the death rate among 
the negroes is abnormally high. In 
typical Southern cities where the death 
rate among the whites stands at the 
moderate figures of 10 to 12 per thou- 
sand, it reaches among the negroes 
from 20 to 25 per thousand. 

It has recently been asserted by 
some supposedly competent authorities 
that the death rateof the negroes is 
now probably in excess of their birth 
rate, so that an actual numerical de- 
crease has set in, owing largely to the 
ravages of consumption and certain 
other diseases. Nature exacts obedi- 
ence to her laws — she knows neither 
pity nor revenge. 

Prof. Wilcox of Cornell University 
and Prof. Smith of Tulane University, 
and others, have undertaken a more 
far-reaching investigation into the 
the census figures and the facts 
of ethnological history, and have 
deduced therefrom the conclusion that 
“the negroes will continue to be a 
steadily smaller proportion of our pop- 
ulation,” and that in the course of time 
they will die out in America from in- 
herent and natural causes. 

Whether these extreme speculations 
— for they are speculations — are well 
founded or not, yet the established 
facts as to the relative increase of 
the races have a most important bear- 
ing on the solution of our problem. 
They show that this problem is not 
near so difficult as it was supposed to 
be twenty years ago, when false pro- 
phets were predicting white submer- 
gence. 

And more important still, these facts 


8 


show that the white people of the South 
and especially of the State of Georgia, 
can now proceed to work out their 
racial problem on lines of justice to 
the negro without imperilling white 
supremacy. Those fears which once 
appalled us we may now dismiss and 
let reason resume its sway. 

If future years should develop enough 
race pride in the negroes to make them 
concentrate in one locality, they might 
gain ascendency there and give the 
world a practical demonstration of 
their capacity or incapacity as a race- 
force in civilization. But we see no 
clear signs of such a movement now, 
and Georgia at least is in no danger 
of being chosen as the Canaan for 
that sort of an experiment. 

A Working Plan of Justice. 

In seeking a solution of any difficult 
problem, the first step should be to 
eliminate the impossible schemes pro- 
posed, and then concentrate on some 
line of operation that is at least possi- 
ble. We often hear the epigrammatic 
dictum that there are but three possi- 
ble solutions of our race problem: de- 
portation, assimilation or annihilation. 
When we bring our sober sences to 
bear, all three of these so-called possi- 
pilities appear to be practical impos- 
sibilities. Not one of the three pre- 
sents a working hypothesis. Physical 
facts alone prevent deportation. Phy- 
sical facts, stressed by an ineradicable 
race pride, bar the way against as- 
similation. Physical facts backed by 
our religion, our civilization, our very 
selves, forbid annihilation. We can 
not imitate Herod. 

This much seems clear beyond doubt, 

. that the whites are going to stay in 
this Southland for all time, and so are 
the negroes going to stay here 
in greater or less proportions 
for generations to come. If, then, 
both races are to remain together, the 
plainly sensible thing for statesmen cf 
this day to do is to devise the best 
modus vivendi or working plan by 
which the greatest good can be accom- 
plished for ourselves and our posterity. 
We of this day are not expected to 
overload ourselves with the burden of 
settling all the problems of all future 
ages. If we take good care of the next 


few centuries, we may well be content 
to leave some matters to be attended 
to by our remote posterity— aided, of 
course, by Providence. 

Over against that Trinity of impos- 
sibilies — deportation, assimilation or 
annihilation — let us offer the simple 
plan of justice. 

The first and absolutely essential fac- 
tor in any working hypothesis at the 
South so far as human ken can now 
foresee, is white supremacy — suprem- 
acy arising from present natural su- 
periority, but based always on justice 
to the negro. 

Those whose stock in trade is “hat- 
ing the nigger” may easily gain some 
temporary advantage for themselves in 
our -white primaries, where it requires 
no courage either physical or moral to 
strike those who have no power to 
strike back — not even with a paper 
ballot. But these men will achieve 
nothing permanent for the good of the 
State or of the nation by stirring up 
race passion and prejudice. Injustice 
and persecution will not solve any of 
the problems of the ages. God did not 
so ordain His universe. 

Justly proud of our race, we refuse 
to amalgamate with the negro. Never- 
theless, the negro is a human being, 
under the Fatherhood of God, and con- 
sequently within the Brotherhood of 
Man — for those two relations are in- 
separably joined together. All soul- 
possessing creatures must be sons of 
God, and joint heirs of immortality. 

Moreover, the negro is an American 
citizen, and is protected as such, by 
guarantees of the constitution that are 
as irrepealable almost as the Bill of 
Rights itself. Nor if such a thing as 
repealing these guarantees were possi- 
ble, would it be wise for the south. 
Suppose we admit the oft re-iterated 
proposition that no two races so dis- 
tinct as the Caucasian and the negro 
can live together on terms of perfect 
equality; yet it is equally true that 
without some access to the ballot, pres- 
ent or prospective, some participation 
in the government, no inferior race in 
an elective republic could long protect 
itself against reduction to slavery in 
many of its substantial forms and 
God knows the South wants no more 
of that curse. 


9 


We have long passed the crisis of 
the disease brought on by the exist- 
ence of slavery in the blood of the 
republic. Let us now build up the body 
politic in health and strength, and 
guard it against ever again being in- 
oculated with a poison even remotely 
resembling that deadly virus. Sporadic 
cases of peonage have already devel- 
oped in several States and have been 
suppressed. Let us provide against 
every appearance of contagion. 

Race Pride Versus Race Prejudice. 

One of the most serious difficulties 
about the solution of our problem is to 
be found in getting the dominent 
whites of the South to draw a proper 
discrimination betwen a laudable pride 
in our race, and an unworthy preju- 
dice against the negro race. Prejudice 
of any sort is hostile to that sound 
judgement which the Creator gave us 
for our guide. Race prejudice pre- 
sents this disturbing element in one 
of its most unreasoning forms. In 
violence it ranks next to religious fan- 
aticism. The one is based on a sup- 
posed duty to God; the other on a sup- 
posed duty to one’s race-blood. The 
deeper this sense of duty, the more 
hardened the mind against every ap- 
peal to reason. In persecuting the 
early Christians, Paul thought he was 
doing his duty to God. The men who 
burned the witches in New England 
thought they were doing their duty. 

So, perhaps, may think that ex- 
preacher, who in our own day has turn- 
ed playright, and calling to his aid 
all the .accessories of the stage 
and all the realisms of the 
living drama, seeks to fan into 
flame the fiercest passions of 
the whites and blacks. His chief pur - 
pose so far as one can logically de- 
duce it, seems to be to force into im- 
mediate conflagration combustible ma- 
terials, which his heated imagination 
tells him must burn sometime in the 
future. Apparently he chafes under 
the delay of Providence in bringing on 
the ghastly spectacle, and yearns to 
wutness with his own eyes in the flesh 
that reign of hell on earth before his 
own redeemed soul is ushered into the 
calm, serene and gentle presence of 


Him whose gospel of love and light 
he once preached to erring men. 

If the true purpose of this rever- 
end gentleman be to preserve the blood 
of our race in its purity by creating 
a sentiment against intermarriage of 
the whites and blacks, let him con- 
fine his play to Chicago and Boston 
and New York and Philadelphia and 
other like places, where some few 
of such marriages are said to occur. 
As for us in the South, we need no 
artificial stimulant to arouse our peo- 
ple against that sort of racial inter- 
marriage. Our law forbids it, and 
that is one law no man or woman ever 
violates. 

Race Purity. 

In this connection let us of the South 
realize the hard fact that the greatest 
obstacle to the preservation of the 
purity of the blood of our race, about 
which we hear so much in this day, 
was removed when slavery was abol- 
ished. That institution, as indisput- 
able facts too plainly show, wrought 
much contamination of Caucasian 
blood. 

In Virginia in 1630 a white man- 
servant was publicly flogged for con- 
sorting with a negro slave, and was 
required to make public confession of 
his guilt on the following Sabbath — - 
but clearly the custom of flogging for 
that form of offense must soon have 
fallen into “innocuous desuetude.” 

In calmly considering now the sit- 
uation that confronted our statesmen 
of the ante-bellum period, that which 
most astounds us is their apparent 
failure to foresee what would have 
been the inevitable consequence of an 
indefinite continuance of slavery in 
its effect on race purity and on rela- 
tive race numbers. The ratio of in- 
crease of the negroes was far in ex- 
cess of the whites. The great labor- 
ing middle class, which forms the 
backbone of every nation’s pluck and 
power, was fast migrating westward, 
and the remaining population was 
rapidly crystalizing into an upper class 
of white slave holders and a lower 
class of negro slaves — the latter out- 
multiplying their masters in numbers. 
Another one hundred years of sla- 


\ 


10 


very would in all probability have 
doomed the south to absolute negro 
domination by mere weight of num- 
bers whenever emancipation should 
come — and come it was sure to do at 
some time in the evolution of the ele- 
mental forces that were at work. 

If there be a Providence who watch- 
es over the affairs of nations and 
“slumbers not nor sleeps,” we may say 
in all reverence that he would have 
made an almost inexcusable blunder 
if he had delayed much longer the 
abolition of slavery. 

Social recognition of the true dig- 
nity of labor, which is so necessary 
to the growth of a vigorous and self- 
respecting middle class, could not be 
maintained in the presence of slavery 
where manual toil is so generally re- 
garded as a badge of servitude. 

Negro Race Pro : ected Forward Be- 
yond Natural Development. 

When a subject people in the hard 
school of experience gradually assert 
themselves and ervolve from within 
the physical, mental and spiritual for- 
ces that achieve their freedom, as did 
the Anglo-Saxons from under the yoke 
of their Norman conquerors, they come 
forth by natural growth prepared for 
the duties and responsibilities of self 
government. 

But the negro as a race had under- 
gone no such process of evolution. His 
transportation from Africa to Amer- 
ica and his transition from slavery to 
freedom were both the results of ex- 
ternal impositions and not of inter- 
nal development. The power came 
from without, not from within. He 
did not win his freedom. It was be- 
stowed upon him. 

Granting that he is only a back- 
ward member of the great human fam- 
ily, which as most evolutionists and 
Christians believe, is moving steadily 
on toward the distant goal of Millen- 
nial perfection, yet. we can not fail 
to see that the negro race was sud- 
denly projected forward into a stage 
of civilization many generations in 
advance of its own natural develop- 
ment. 

Is it any wonder, then, that the ne- 
gro as a race should not be altogeth- 
er fitted to the laws and customs and 


political institutions of those among 
whom his lot was cast? 

Again, is it any wonder that this ad- 
vanced civilization should find it nec- 
essary at times to apply sterner pen- 
alties for the curbing of his savage in- 
stincts when he was freed from the 
accustomed control of his master? 

Unfortunately, soon after emanci- 
pation, some of the worst specimens 
of the blacks began to commit an un- 
pardonable crime. Instantly the white 
man placed over the door of his home, 
whether it were proud mansion or 
humble cabin, a warning more terri- 
ble in its meaning than that which 
Dante dreamed he saw over the gate- 
way to hell: “Let the brute who en- 
ters here leave all hope behind.” In 
the presence of that crime, men do 
not think, they only feel. 

But how shall we fix bounds for 
those who rush madly outside the lim- 
its of the law? Lynching began with 
this and similar savage crimes. But, 
alas, where will they all end? Let us 
hope that these excesses of both races 
are merely incidental factors in our 
problem, and that they will soon di- 
minish ana eventually disappear 

Abhorrent as are the crimes of some 
degenerate members of the negro race, 
we Southern people can never forget 
the simple faith and tragic loyalty 
of those thousands of slaves who 
guarded and protected the women and 
children at home, while the men were 
at the front fighting to drive back an 
invading foe whose victory meant free- 
doom to those slaves themselves. 

Negro Military Salute Confederate 

Monument. 

Nor is there a total dearth of touch- 
ing incidents in these latter days. Only 
about a year or so ago, a negro mili- 
tary company from Savannah came 
marching in full array up Broadway «n 
Augusta. In front of them rising to- 
ward the sky in beautiful artistic pro- 
portions .stood a marble monument 
erected by loving women to the dead 
Confederacy. At its base were statues 
of Lee and Jackson and Cobb and 
Walker, and lifted high up above them 
all on the top of the towering shaft 
stood the statue of a private Confed- 
erate soldier. No white military com* 


11 


) 


pany, no camp of maimed Confederate 
veterans ever pass that monument 
without giving it the honor of a for- 
mal salute. 

As the negro military comes 
nearer, one of two gentlemen standing 
in the doorway of a building nearby 
says: “Let us watch now and see if 
those fellows will salute the Confeder- 
ate monument.” The other gentleman 
explains that no salute will be given 
because it will not occur to the com- 
manding officer, but that the omission 
will not be intended as an affront. 
Scarcely are the words spoken, when 
the negro captain, in clear, ringing 
tones that prove the sincerity of his 
tribute, gives the command to salute, 
and every black arm instantly obeys 
that command. 

There was cheering among the white 
bystanders. 

When the great Wade Hampton lay 
upon his death bed he made this pray- 
er: “God bless all my people — white 

and black — God bless them all.” 

Suffrage Qualifications. 

While the issue of political control 
under the 15th amendment still con- 
fronted the Southern States, Mississippi 
having the greatest negro majority, led 
off with her constitution of 1891 pro- 
viding an educational qualification for 
voting. There being more illiterate 
blacks than illiterate whites in Missis- 
sippi, the necessary effect of this law 
was to promote white supremacy. But 
the law on its face did not discrimi- 
nate against the negro on account of 
his race. It covered whites and blacks 
alike. 

The supreme court of the United 
States promptly decided that this Mis- 
sissippi law did not violate the federal 
constitution. What the effect of its 
practical administration has been need 
not now be discussed. 

Other States followed with similar 
laws based primarily on educational 
qualifications, but soon a proviso was 
evolved to preserve the ballot to illit- 
erate whites. An honest administra- 
tion of a suffrage law based on an 
educational qualification would neces- 
sarily disfranchise a great many whites. 
Hence a proviso was devised to the 
effect that the educational qualification 


should not apply to any person, nor to 
the descendant of any person, who 
could have voted at some past date, 
say, for example, Jan. 1, 1867, when 
negroes as a class were not allowed to 
vote. This proviso was popularly 
known as the “Grandfather clause,” 
because under it, a man otherwise dis- 
qualified, might, so to speak, inherit 
the right of suffrage from his grand- 
father. 

The manifest purpose of this clause 
was to nullify the educational require- 
ment of the State law as to the whites, 
while leaving it in full force as to the 
negroes, and in this way to get around 
the 15th amendment of the federal 
constitution which forbids discrimina- 
tion on account of race. 

The supreme court of the United 
States has gone as far as any one 
could have expected it to go in up- 
holding the reserved rights of the 
States on the subject of suffrage. But 
that court has never directly nor in- 
directly sanctioned the validity of any 
suffrage law containing the Grandfather 
clause or any other clause based on 
the same principle. 

Whenever the supreme court shall 
take judicial notice, as it will do, of 
the historical fact that on the date 
selected for the Grandfather clause to 
begin to operate, say Jan. 1, 1867, the 
negroes as a class had no right to vote, 
or when that undeniable or easily 
proven fact is made to appear by evi- 
dence, this device of the Grandfather 
clause must fall of its own crooked- 
ness. A preference to one race is nec- 
essarily the legal equivalent of a dis- 
crimination against the other race. 

It will mark a new departure in 
American constitutional law when the 
right to vote is made inheritable from 
the non-transmissible attributes of an 
ancestor instead of being based on the 
personal attributes of the voter. 

It will mark a still further depart- 
ure in judicial construction when the 
supreme court finds in this new doc- 
trine a legal justification for sanction- 
ing the race discrimination forbidden 
by the 15th amendment. 

The Mississippi law, the only one 
ever squarely considered and directly 
construed by the supreme court, 170 
U. S., 213, does not contain the Grand- 


's 


12 


father clause. That was a device of 
later invention. 

The case of Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S.. 
475, involving the Alabama law, was 
dismissed in the supreme court for 
want of jurisdiction in the lower court 
— but Justices Brewer, Brown and Har- 
lan dissented in vigorous terms. 

The latest case of Jones v. Montague, 
194 U- S- 147, involving the Virginia 
law, was dismissed because the act 
sought to be enjoined — the issuing ot 
certificates of election, etc., to mem- 
®bers of Congress — had already been 
done, and the congressmen had taken 
their seats before the case was reached 
in the supreme court. 

Indeed, it is no secret that those law- 
yers who undertake to defend these 
disfranchisement enactments, place 
their chief reliance in the technical 
difficulties of getting the merits of the 
question before the supreme court. It 
goes without saying, however, that law- 
yers can be found to surmount those 
technical difficulties, and at the bar of 
the supreme court confront the 
“Grandfather” clause of the State con- 
stitutions with the “anti-race-discrimi- 
nation” clause of the federal constitu- 
tion. 

The result scarcely admits of a doubt. 
Disfranchisement Movement in Georgia 

What, then, shall we, as Georgians 
and Americans, true to our own great 
State, and true to the greater nation 
of which it is a part, say of the move- 
ment which is now being so freely 
discussed, and which has seemingly 
gained some headway, to so amend 
our State constitution as to disfranchise 
the negroes as a race? 

We have read in the public press 
repeated statements that prominent 
leaders are openly announcing their in- 
tention to “disfranchise the negro,” and 
promising to “eliminate” him from poli- 
tics.” Not only so, but they further 
promise to accomplish that end 
through a so-called educational quali- 
fication or understanding clause, and 
at the same time not to deprive a sin- 
gle white man of his ballot, no matter 
how illiterate or ignorant he may be. 

I might hesitate here and now, even 
at this last moment, to proceed fur- 
ther with the discussion of this branch 
of my subject if the facts as to in- 


tentions and methods, as I have just 
stated them, were at all in dispute. 
But as I understand it, there is no 
disposition to deny them — rather an 
increasing boldness in asserting them. 
Therefore we may quite properly, it 
seems to me, proceed to draw some 
necessary deductions from those ad- 
mitted facts as they bear on the law 
and morals of the situation. 

How then are these two purposes, to 
put out all the negroes and put in all 
the whites, to be accomplished in the 
face of the prohibition of the fifteenth 
amendment 7 Clearly, it can not be 
dene by open avowal in the body of 
the law, because in that event, the 
law would convict itself in any court 
in the land. How then is this avowed 
purpose to be accomplished? Pardon 
me, my friends, but let us face the 
truth; the scheme must be to disfran- 
chise the negro by a fraudulent admin- 
istration of the law. In no other way 
is it possible to produce the promised 
results. Legislative ingenuity must be 
backed up by administrative fraud — 
else the avowed purpose can not be 
accomplished. 

It must be admitted that the ma- 
chinery of the proposed law could be 
easily perverted to fraudulent purposes. 
Before a citizen can register to vote, 
he is to be required to read and ex- 
plain, or to be able to understand, any 
paragraph of the state constitution. 
Now we lawyers all know that there 
are some parts of our constitution that 
the supreme court judges themselves 
have never been able fully to explain — 
even granting that they understand 
them all. But who are to judge of this 
explanation or understanding? The 
registrars of course. Suppose the most 
learned explanation could be given, 
who will vouch that the registrars 
themselves will understand it, or will 
accept it as satisfactory? 

Of course, the officers of registra- 
tion are to be white. An easy para- 
graph for a white applicant; a diffi- 
cult paragraph for a negro applicant; 
the acceptance of any sort of an ex- 
planation from a white applicant; the 
rejection of any sort of an explanation 
from a negro applicant — there you have 


13 


the hidden cards with which the game 
of cheat is to be played. And it is on 
this miserable bare-faced scheme of 
fraud that our proud and noble peo- 
ple are asked to rest their safety and 
their civilization. 

How long do the advocates of this 
method of disfranchisement think they 
can expose their purpose to the political 
eye and keep it concealed from the ju- 
dicial eye? How long can they pro- 
claim it on the hustings and hush it in 
the court house? 

Referring to one of these laws, a 
learned commentator on our supreme 
court decisions has said: “If in the light 
of their history and conditions and the 
avowed purpose of the authors of the 
laws, their objects are clothed in stat- 
utes so worded that the real designs 
are not expressed in terms, the situa- 
tion would seem to be one to require 
the court to reason from cause to ef- 
fect.” 

The court in construing the four- 
teenth amendment (118 U. S. 356) has 
said: “Though the law itself be fair 
on its face and impartial in appear- 
ance, yet if it be applied and admin- 
istered by public authority with an 
evil eye and an unequal hand so as 
practically to make unjust and un- 
equal discriminations between persons 
in similar circumstances, material to 
their rights, the denial of equal jus- 
tice is still within the prohibition of 
the constitution.” 

Nor can escape be found in that line 
of decisions by the supreme court to 
the effect that the prohibition of the 
fifteenth amendment applies to state 
action and not to acts of private citi- 
zens. The registrars who are to en- 
force this disfranchisement law are 
officers and agents of the state. The 
supreme court (100 U. S. 339) have 
further said: “Whoever by virtue of 

his public position under a state gov- 
ernment, deprives another of life, lib- 
erty or property without due process 
of law, or denies or takes, away the 
equal protection of the law, violates 
the inhibition of the fourteenth amend- 
ment, and as he acts in the name of, 


and for, the state and is clothed with 
her power, his act is her act.” 

This same principle of responsibility 
will be applied to the registrars under 
this disfranchisement law. Their acts 
will be the acts of the state, and will 
consequently come within the prohibi- 
tion of the fifteenth amendment, and 
will also be within the jurisdiction of 
the federal courts, where alleged viola- 
tions of the law will be tried. 

But aside from these legal aspects of 
the matter, let us ask ourselves if there 
is not a more serious practical diffi- 
culty to be overcome. These registrars 
as officers must take the usual oath 
co perform their duties impartially 
under the law. Let us put the plain 
blunt question: How many counties 

in Georgia can be relied on to furnish 
three citizens for registrars who will 
agree in advance to violate their sol- 
emn oaths? Will not honest men 
point at them the finger of scorn? 

The great John C. Calhoun sought 
to nullify a federal statute law on the 
tariff by state action because he be- 
lieved it to be in violation of the federal 
constitution, which he loved and hon- 
ored. 

But these latter day nullifiers are 
seeking to nullify the federal constitu- 
tion by a state law — no, not by a state 
law itself, but by the fraudulent ad- 
ministration of a state law. No power 
on earth could have made Mr. Cal- 
houn stoop to such chicanery — he was 
fashioned in a nobler mould. What a 
contrast between the great nullifier and 
these little nullifiers! 

The abuses to which the broad dis- 
cretionary powers of the registrars un- 
der these disfranchisement laws might 
be carried in times of fierce partisan 
politics are absolutely unlimited. We 
need not flatter ourselves that white 
men will never be the victims of such 
abuses. When moral character is once 
defied and fraud seeks its selfish ends, 
it will not stop at the color line. 

One Danger in Educational Qualifica- 
tion. 

There can be no legal objection 
whenever the public necessity requires 
it, to establishing a reasonable educa- 


14 


tional qualification for voters, provid- 
ed that qualification is fairly and hon- 
estly applied. But if this educational 
qualification is to be used as a fraud- 
ulent subterfuge to disfranchise the 
negro, then there is another very se- 
rious consequence which will necessar- 
ily follow. 

If by appeals to race prejudice and 
fear these negro disfranchises estab- 
lish the educational test in fulfilment of 
their promise to “eliminate the negro 
from politics,” then of necessity, these 
same leaders and their followers must 
irecognize that from their point of 
view it is not the ignorant, but the 
educated negroes who will be the most 
dangerous political enemies of the 
whites. 

The question will at once arise why 
should the white people create danger- 
ous political enemies by allowing the 
negroes to be educated? Why not 
“eliminate them from politics” by keep- 
ing them in ignorance? There is no 
escape from the logic of this argument 
if the premise be correct. Thus we 
would find ourselves committed to the 
degrading policy of enforcing ignor- 
ance on a weaker race, with its attend- 
ant results of peonage and semi-slavery 
from which all good men would pray 
for deliverance. 

Division of School Fund on Race Line. 

Even now there are signs of a move- 
ment in Georgia to give the negro 
schools only that pittance of money 
arising from the negro’s taxes. A law 
to that effect has already been de- 
clared invalid by the state court in 
North Carolina (94 N. C. 709); also 
by the state court in Kentucky (83 
Ky. 49) ; and also by the federal courts 
in three decisions from Kentucky (16 
Fed. R. p. 297; 23 Fed. R. 634, and 
72 Fed. R. 689.) 

In our own state a bill to the same 
effect was passed in 1888 for a local 
school system, and Governor John B. 
Gordon, while Hon. Clifford Anderson 
was attorney general, vetoed it on the 
ground that it was against sound pol- 
icy and a violation of the constitution 
of the state and the United States. 

There is nothing in the decision of 


our state supreme court in the Eaton- 
ton case (80 Ga. 755) nor in the Rich- 
mond county high school case (103 Ga. 
641) to sustain the proposition that 
the common school funds of the state, 
or of any subdivision of the state, can 
be divided between the races in pro- 
portion to the property or taxes of 
each. On the contrary, in the latter 
case, our state court said: “So far as 
the record discloses, both races have 
the same facilities of attending them 
(the free common schools). And the 
United States supreme court, in re- 
viewing this Georgia case (175 U. S. 
528) say it is an admitted principle 
of law that the “benefits and burdens 
of public taxation' must be shared by 
citizens without discrimination against 
any class on account of their race.” 

Along this same line spoke Governor 
Charles J. Jenkins, known to Geor- 
gians as the “Noblest Roman of Them 
All,” when he took the chair as pres- 
ident of the constitutional convention 
of 1877. He said: 

“I utter no caution against class leg- 
islation or discrimination against our 
citizens of African descent. I feel a 
perfect assurance that there is no 
member of this body who would pro- 
pose such action, and if there were, 
he would soon find himself without a 
following.” 

These are the words of a high- 
minded statesman — not of a time serv- 
ing politician. There are many differ- 
ences between these two types of pub- 
lic men. One difference is that a poli- 
tician seeks to find out what public 
opinion is and hastens to follow it, 
while a statesman seeks to find out 
what public opinion ought to be and 
helps to mould it. 

Our late Chancellor Hill, whose un- 
timely death is so deeply deplored by 
us all, belonged to that higher class 
of moulders of public opinion. By ex- 
ample as well as by precept he led 
the way to the nobler ends of life. 
Should Georgia Follow Other States. 

Surely nothing but the direst neces- 
sity of self-preservation could induce 
any people to resort to such suffrage 
expedients as are now being proposed 
to the people of Georgia. Nothing 
less than an impending overthrow of 


15 


white civilization by negro domination 
could excuse such extreme measures. 
But if our discussion has shown any- 
thing, it has shown that Georgia is 
not now in danger of negro domin- 
ation. 

One argument that is being press- 
ed upon our people is, that Georgia 
should follow the example of other 
Southern states that have passed sim- 
ilar disfranchisement laws. But let 
us ask, why should Georgia follow 
them? Is there anything in their ex- 
amples on this subject worthy of our 
imitation? If their necessities compell- 
ed such questionable action, let us 
sympathize with them in their extrem- 
ity. But let us not. imitate them when 
no such necessity besets us. Did not 
Georgia first redeem herself after re- 
construction? Has she not kept abreast 
of her sister states in material, intel- 
lectual and moral progress? Is she 
not still the Empire State of the 
South? What state can show a cleaner 
official record for thirty years? Rather 
let Georgia continue to lead in wise 
and conservative statesmanship. On 
all fundamental questions our white 
people are sufficiently united in 
thought and purpose to come together 
in a solid phalanx if the negroes should 
ever return to the ballot box in suffi- 
cient numbers on one side of an issue 
to jeopardize the public safety. 

As a legal means of maintaining 
white supremacy, no plan yet devised 
approaches in effectiveness our party 
primary system, in combination with 
the cumulative poll tax provision of 
the constitution. 

Whatever may be the final political 
status of the negro we are now unde- 
niably in a transition stage of evolu- 
tion. It is scarcely conceivable that 
the conditions created by the disfran- 
chisement laws of some southern states 
can be permanent. The battle for su- 
premacy between those laws and the 
federal constitution remains to be 
fought out. If the federal constitu- 
tion proves victorious, as it is very 
apt to do, then the entire electoral 
system of these states may have to 
be changed. 

On the other hand, Georgia, through 
her superior statesmanship, has put 


herself in a position of safety, ready 
to take advantage of whatever hopeful 
developments the future may unfold. 
She has violated no federal law. She 
has maintained white supremacy with 
the least possible friction, and can 
continue to so maintain it. 

Not only is this campaign against 
the negro unnecessary and unjust, but 
it is most inopportune at this juncture. 
When every county in the state is 
calling loudly for more labor to serve 
the household and till the fields and de- 
velop our resources, why should we 
seek to enact more oppressive laws 
against the labor we now have? 

We do not know what shifting phases 
this vexing race problem may assume, 
but we may rest in the conviction that 
its ultimate solution must be reached 
by proceeding along the lines of hon- 
esty and justice. Let us not in cow- 
ardice or in want of faith, needlessly 
sacrifice our higher ideals of private 
and public life. Race differences may 
necessitate social distinctions. But 
race differences can not repeal the 
moral law. 

The Moral Law — Its Origin and Sanc- 
tion. 

What is this thing we call the moral 
law? It is a mere weak sentiment, 
suitable only for children and preach- 
ers and Sunday school teachers? Or 
is it the fiat of Nature and Nature’s 
God, commanding obedience from all 
men under the sanction of inevitable 
penalties? We will waive all ques- 
tions as to weight of authority, and 
reason out the matter for ourselves. 

Whence come our morals or ethical 
conceptions? Briefly let us summarize: 

First: The theological school rests 

the foundation of morals on divine 
commandment or revelation which 
quickens the conscience. 

God spake through Moses, the 
Prophets and the Christ. 

Second: The psychological school 

traces the source of morals to an in- 
stinct or sense that is innate in the 
mind itself — the conscience. 

The philosopher and metaphysician 
Immanuel Kant, reasoned back to his 




16 


celebrated postulate of a “categorical 
imperative” call to duty. 

Third: The utilitarian school evolves 
morals from human experience, sanc- 
tioning as “good” or “right” that con- 
duct which has proven beneficial, and 
condemning as “bad” or “wrong” that 
conduct which has proven injurious, 
thus creating and developing the con- 
science by successive stages of experi- 
mental knowledge. 

Herbert Spencer thus evolved his 
system of utilitarian ethics till it al- 
most flowered out in the beauty of the 
“Golden Rule.” 

Prof. Huxley discussing the scientific 
doctrine of causation, says: “The 

safety of morality lies, in a real and 
living belief in that fixed order of na- 
ture which sends social disorganization 
upon the track of immorality as surely 
as it sends physical disease after physi- 
cal trespassers.” 

It is not necessary for us to deter- 
mine how much of truth there is in 
each of these schools of thought. 
Enough for us to know that all three 
reach substantially the same conclu- 
sion as to right rules of conduct for 
men. By different routes they arrive 
at the same goal. In reasoning they 
are three: in acting they are one. Here 
is a subject on which religion and 
science are in full accord, namely, that 
the moral law is the wisest rule of hu- 
man conduct. 

So much for the individual man. 

The Moral Law Applies to States as 
Well as Individuals. 

Now does the same moral law apply 
to states and nations as well as to 
individuals? Or are there two codes 
of morality, one for individuals and 
another for aggregations of individu- 
als? Can we practice fraud as a col- 
lective body of citizens and still pre- 
sere our personal integrity as indi- 
vidual citizens? 

We might quote Mr. Jefferson as an 
authority for the doctrine that “moral 
duties are as obligatory on nations as 
on individuals . 99 But again let us 

waive authority and reason out our own 
conclusions. We will test the ques- 


tion by the standards of the three 
schools of thought first named. 

If we assume that the theological 
school is correct, it is manifest that 
there can not be a code of public 
morals different in principle from the 
code of private morals. God must deal 
with individuals and nations alike, be- 
cause the former are the responsible 
units of the latter. 

If we assume that the psychological 
school is correct, it is equally manifest 
that the conscience being an innate 
mental quality can not reverse its ac- 
tion by changing from private to pub- 
lic capacity, from individual to collec- 
tive functions. 

If we assume that the utilitarian 
school is correct, it ought to be equally 
as clear that the rule of conduct which 
experience has proven to be beneficial 
as between individuals, is also bene- 
ficial as between states under like con- 
ditions. 

It is true that aggregations of indi- 
viduals, by reason of divided respon- 
sibility, do not usually act up to the 
code of morals recognized by single in- 
dividuals. That historical fact shows 
the imperfection of our past civiliza- 
tion, and calls upon us for better work 
in the future. No one accepts the con- 
dition as permanent or satisfactory. 
The great task of civilization, the 
dearest hope of philisophers and noble 
minded statesmen, is to constantly im- 
prove that condition and bring nations 
more under the sway of the moral law. 
Though perfection be unattainable, ev- 
ery step is progress. 

In proportion, as international inter- 
course becomes more free will a code 
of international ethics based on a code 
of personal ethics be developed to the 
immeasurable advantage of all con- 
cerned. Such is the doctrine underly- 
ing The Hague tribunal, which has al- 
ready done so much for the peace of 
the world. 

One of the noblest tributes ever paid 
to Gladstone was, that he had applied 
the moral law to British politics. 

It was Aristides, surnamed the Just 
— a brave soldier, a successful general, 
a man of sound practical judgment, 


lr 


not a mere dreamer — who, when 

named by the Athenians to consider a 
secret plan suggested by Thermisto- 
cles to gain naval supremacy for 
Athens by burning the ships of her 
allies, reported against the unscrupul- 
ous scheme and said: “What Thermis- 
tocles proposes might be to your pres- 
ent advantage, but O Athenians, it is 
not just.” 

Speaking of the ideal, universal, moral 
code, one of the least sentimental of 
modern scientific writers says: “Al- 

though its realization may lie in the un- 
seen future, civilization must hold fast 
to it, if it would be any more than a 
blind natural process; and it is certain- 
ly the noblest function of social science 
to point out the wearisome way along 
which mankind dripping with blood, yet 
pants for the distant goal.” 

Another deep thinker summing up the 
facts of history and the reasonings of 
philosophers says: “That the moral law 

is the unchanging law of social progress 
in human society is the lesson which 
appears to be written over all things.” 

Solution of Race Problem; Give Negro 

Justice. 

The foundation of the moral law is 
justice. Let us solve the negro problem 
by giving the negro justice, and apply- 
ing to him the recognized principles of 
the moral law. 

This does not require social equality. 
It does not require that we should sur- 
render into his inexperienced and incom- 
petent hands the reins of political gov- 
ernment. But it does require that we 
recognize his fundamental rights as a 
man, and that we judge each individual 
according to his own qualifications anu 
not according to the lower average char- 
acteristics of his race. Political rights 
cannot justly be withheld from those 
American citizens of an inferior or back- 
ward race who raise themselves up to 
the standard of citizenship which the 
superior race applies to its own mem- 
bers. 

It is true that the right of suffrage 
is not one of those inalienable rights 
of man, like life, liberty and the pur- 
suit of happiness, as enumerated in the 
declaration of independence, but the 
right of exemption from discrimination 


in the exercise of suffrage on account of 
race, is one of the guaranteed constitu- 
tional rights of all American citizens. 

We of the south are an integral part 
of this great country. We should stand 
ready to make every sacrifice demanded 
by honor and permitted by wisdom to 
remove the last vestige of an excuse for 
the perpetuation of that spirit of sec- 
tionalism which excludes us from the 
full participation in governmental honors 
to which our brain and character enti- 
tle us. 

Let us respect the national laws to the 
limit of endurance, and ii that limit 
should be passed, let us resort to some 
means of redress more typical of south- 
ern manhood than fraudulent subter- 
fuge. The future material proseprity 
of the south is already assured. Let 
us resolve that there shall remain in- 
grained in the moral fibre of our new 
south the high character of our old 
south — which can best be described in 
the memorable words of Edmund Burke 
as “that sensibility of principle, that 
chastity of honor which felt a strain 
like a wound.” 

We cannot afford to sacrifice our ideais 
of justice, of law and of religion for the 
purpose of preventing the negro from 
elevating himself. If we wish to pre- 
serve the wide gap between our race 
and his in the onward progress of civ- 
ilization, let us do it by lifting ourselves 
up, not by holding him down. 

If, as some predict, the negro in the 
distant future must fail a/:d fall by the 
wayside in the strenuous march of the 
nations, let him fall by his own inferior- 
ity, and not by our tyranny. Give him a 
fair cnance to work out what is in him. 

Carl McKinley, that brilliant and 
noble hearted author of “An Appeal to 
Pharaoh,” who advocated so earnestly 
and so eloquently the impracticable pol- 
icy of deportation, declared himself on 
this subject as follows: 

We should have learned by this time 
moreover, that we can not treat the ne- 
gro with injustice, however disguised, 
without sharing the consequences with 
him. * * * It would be a foul wrong 

to beat him back in his upward strug- 
gle, and consign him to a lower plain 
and establish him on it.” 

If the negro as a race is to be disfran- 


18 


chised regardless of the personal quali- 
fications of meritorious individual mem- 
bers of that race, consider for a moment 
some of the changes we must make in 
many of the fundamental doctrines lying 
at the base of our government. The re- 
vised version of our political Bible would 
have to read something like this: “No 

taxation without representation — except 
as to negroes;” “equal rights to all ex- 
cept as to negroes;” “all men are creat- 
ed equal — except as to negroes.” 

No Recantation of Jefferson’s Doctrine. 

Some modern critics seriously suggesi 
that we should amend that paragrapn 
of the declaration of independence which 
asserts the equal rights of men, so as 
to adjust it more accurately to histori- 
cal and scientific facts. But that epoch- 
making document needs no alteration 
upon the subject of human rights when 
Interpreted as it was intended to be in- 
terpreted by the man who drafted it. 
Mark you, Mr. Jefferson did not write: 
“All men are born free,” as the quota- 


tion is sometimes given. That looser lan- 
guage is found in the constitution of 
Massachusetts, not in the declaration ot 
independence. Such an assertion would 
have been disproved by the historical 
fact of slavery then existing. What 
Mr. Jefferson wrote was “All men are 
created equal.” That is to say, not equal 
in exterior circumstances, nor in physi- 
cal or mental attributes but equal in the 
sight of God and just human 

law, in their alienable rights 

to life, liberty and the pursuit 

of happiness. Americans want no re- 
cantation of that declaration. It is the 
political corollary of the Christian doc- 
trine of the justice and the Fatherhood 
of God. Let it stand as it was penneu 
by Jefferson an ennobling, even though 
unattainable, ideal, demanded by the 

spiritual nature of man — one of inose 
ideals that have done more to life up 
humanity and to build up civilization 
than all the gold from all the mines of 
all the world. 




19 














' 



















it 
























































ao 





\ 














' 




s 


' 





■ 









O 'o . * * /V 

A V 


O 'o . » * A 

A V 




° ^ V o 

* <f? ° 

V * — CT- * J ,<?- 

<> ' * * 5 a g 

- % r° t* 1 ^* o, 

P* v ^ - O 


*° ^ w//<! _ 

A- ^vyy/yp ♦ h. * _ •** 

r£* ^ t ^6A/ ^ _^|a 0_ -> 

f " ^ °^. 

yj .**«- *> V »*.V. ^ c\ 

^ ^ «'. ^ ** *‘ 


* ^ ^ 


C- vP 

<V> vP^ O 
* -OP ^ o 

- A <.-*.Trr*‘ y *! 

A c ° " 0 .» <i> o^ .«•'♦«, ^o 

<T *V5$$W* "V c° *WZfe,* 

* j&r \\ + 



O \0 V*. 

S V V^. ct. < 

•-•■* a°° V ‘ 

* --*> ,p >’pi% ^ 

■<P„ /K o. rA A, ° < 



0 O \ 0 v\ 

\ v 'K «t 

*° ^ *•'” A, 

AT ,« • o- •%> A 

O' > 5 ) _* y- V 

° ^ aV * 

O *»* 

• c^ ^ c 

* <? v, - 

„ ^ r° v »* l J,4’ **°-» 

fc* K ^ <*& 



* G v T o^ 'o’*;'* A 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2010 


*. PreservationTechnologie 

O A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATIC 


111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



o • * 


A 


A 






a t -» 



^ As ^ "V” 

o. 'O . x * A <V ** 

c°" c ^ <a 

\ N \ 

*6 V* 0 

l> 





< 

* CW : ^ o w y * )^Tj ij|g\ • ^ u ■ • 

'•\S 1 ?* *. 

o . 7 ^- 0 ^f. «> q_ % 

.. 'U 0 “ 0 A 0 " ’ .V %. * ° - ° 

o ,9 .’••»''> V 5 s *" % o 

^ ^ , -aW/V, • ^ 

VP V 


^ 0 C? \T\ 
& * <t? A 

* s ,r * 




o <v 

A 0 0 * 0 * ^ 

lT>- * r-sSN\ <*" 



l 0 *4 



: W 

' a^A*. 

- * AV v* 

~ <£* * a A •< 

* * s 4 G '*’ ° * * * * A 

0^ .*'•, ^ 

v» 



c 


G 


0 N <3 


• « 



,U- ~V *"-'* A %.*••*' A 0 

• A <? .», A ^ • dSfe'* ^ a* * 

:. > 9 ^ vv jA 

* VA J .^5i«, 0 A A “WiW: a v a 

A * 

% ^ 
tf> '~y 



A 




A 




A v ^ ^ 

<V ca 

c ^ c * <*> rsV 


L * a 



o 0 ^ J i ^ r * ' A‘ 

f 0 «> " 1 < V 

> ***«?- A V * 


A 9 


■s. ^ j. 

<y ^ 


& *- y «J 

■'. > V N >^/, O. 0 ^ ►’*»- <?• > 1 ^,'* 'O 

': ''; j|fe: "a/ ^ 

g° y a, a a 



r 0 ^ t .^ A 


0*1 



7 ^ ^ 

r * y, V « 

^ <1 v 






< N V 

^ <? 


v' r * 

«• ^ ► _4 ** i 

* ^0 • J 


°^ **•.•• a0 

c\, .0 

«* a A V 

* ^ »rl 

i : j >9 • jJ 



• n V •_.» 

’* ^ 'yyff; y* ^ A ‘ 

*»-’*' A A „ „ 0 ’* O 0 'V "»- 5 * 

V* ^ 5 * ' C\ , 0 ' .**»* ^ 

; ^ > *jgl|v. A. A .vVa* ^ a* 

°. w 'mMki A A 





• 1 


r» c**v « 

a A <, *3 ( . 0 ^ - 

A .•*•. A 0 ^ 

^o 0 

• - v 

’ 0 A 0 v\ v 

' » * *£. " 


A vev v» 

^ o % _ 

A> ''’‘v< s ^V*”° 

° %<&* 



t * 

- ^ 0 * & 
,a q 


, , - ^ ^> 7 TTnr^ * 4 0 . 

„V o 0 A <■> o ' 

cy „ v * « ^ 


* < 1 * ,<b 



^ T w ° + 


r ~ 



